Route “Risk Factors”

[justiner]

I think the route descriptions in general are for summer-like conditions.

[BillMiddlebrook]

Should Avalanche terrain be added as one of the risk factors? ie. this route crosses avy terrain, this route is below avy terrain, this route has no avys

I think the route descriptions in general are for summer-like conditions.

I agree. For routes that have become more popular in winter due to easy access, I have winter warning notes that come up at the top of the routes. Like the avy danger near G/T when passing under Kelso Mtn., the La Plata winter variation or the winter variation on Quandary's east ridge.

[polar]

Should Avalanche terrain be added as one of the risk factors? ie. this route crosses avy terrain, this route is below avy terrain, this route has no avys

Besides the fact that 14er route descriptions are mostly under summer conditions, another problem with listing avalanche terrain is that avalanche is a complex problem. The terrain is only one factor. Snowpack, wind direction, sun exposure, weather, etc. are other (maybe more important) factors. If a route lists avalanche terrain risk as "low", I expect that people, especially those with no avalanche training or experience, will take it as a blank check to do the route in any condition even if the CAIC forecast is black.

[LURE]

Might be a lot of work - could be pretty cool if the CAIC forecast could be overlaid on the 14er map, and linked from popular winter routes. Or advised on the home page to check the CAIC forecast for your intended area before heading out.

We don't need to hold peoples hands here, I know, just thinkin'.

Does look like the CAIC at least offers the option to embed their map on websites.

[BillMiddlebrook]

FYI

The 14ers.com iOS mobile app was just updated this morning to include the risk factors.

I'll let Nathan Hale know about the changes so he can update the Android app in the future.

[Monster5]

So, as a guy who does geologic hazard risk stuff professionally (including for state entities similar to CAIC), risk assessments make me nervous with respect to the legal side and misinterpretation/misuse, or outdated conditions. I wasn't able to readily find some sort of clause on this site. Most of the "terms of use" are forum-related. See CAIC's full policy here*

And I don't mean this as a criticism, but more from the perspective of a professional geo-hazard consultant, but some of the language you have in the risk factor route glossary wouldn't fly with our legal team or our municipal clients' legal teams. Mostly related to challenges or consequences "you" might experience at one risk level, and by implication, not with a different risk level. Then again, I'm also not a lawyer and don't know the intricacies of website information type suits.

*Example CAIC clauses

Use of the information to which access is provided by this website is the responsibility of the user. CAIC retains no liability for the misuse, intended or unintended, of the information obtained from this website.
...
This website is intended for use by natural persons in obtaining information provided by the CAIC. Use of computerized “robots” or “data mining” of the information and images presented here is prohibited. Misuse of this website is prohibited and may result in the revocation of access to those persons or organizations using this site in a way not intended by the CAIC.
...
While CAIC strives to provide the most current and reliable information, avalanche conditions are constantly changing; therefore, portions of information may be incorrect or obsolete. Neither the CAIC nor any employee of the State of Colorado shall be held liable for any losses resulting from reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information. Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this system does so at his or her own risk. Compliance with applicable law remains the responsibility of the user.

[LURE]

There is this at the bottom of each route page:

"Caution: The information contained in this route description may not be accurate and should not be the only resource used in preparation for your climb. Failure to have the necessary experience, physical conditioning, supplies or equipment can result in injury or death. 14ers.com and the author(s) of this route description provide no warranties, either express or implied, that the information provided is accurate or reliable. By using the information provided, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless 14ers.com and the route description author(s) with respect to any claims and demands against them, including any attorney fees and expenses. Please read the 14ers.com Safety and Disclaimer pages for more information."

Don't know if that covers it, also not a lawyer. But there is at least some disclaimer.

I guess, where is the safety and disclaimers page? edit: jk, it's linked in that very disclaimer.

[Eli Boardman]

The concept of unavoidable "Extreme Risk" on a Colorado 14er standard route in summer is laughable.

In the mountains, "extreme risk" means something like the south face of Annapurna I. A quick scramble up some dry rocks at 14,000 feet is not extreme, I'm sorry, it just isn't. Most of us will never do anything "extreme," and that's perfectly ok. Still, there's no use padding our egos with arbitrarily inflated "risk ratings" online.

Also, this system might be a dangerous liability. It lumps Ellingwood Arete (5.7 alpine multi-pitch) into the same category as Capitol's standard route (a couple moves of moderately exposed 4th class). If I can do one "extreme" route, I can do all of them, right? Capitol felt easy and safe, so going by these ratings, it should be no more dangerous for me to solo Ellingwood Arete.

14ers.com is a wonderful resource, and I thank Bill for the time put into maintaining the site, but I honestly think these categories should be removed, or at least significantly toned down.

[LURE]

The concept of unavoidable "Extreme Risk" on a Colorado 14er standard route in summer is laughable.

Sigh. If only people cared about your opinion.

It's all relative in the context of Co 14ers; the implied relative level of risk is probably appropriate.

[Eli Boardman]

Sigh. If only people cared about your opinion.

Says the guy who treats this forum like a Breitbart comment section...
(I'm conservative leaning by the way, just playin')

[disentangled]

The concept of unavoidable "Extreme Risk" on a Colorado 14er standard route in summer is laughable.

In the mountains, "extreme risk" means something like the south face of Annapurna I. A quick scramble up some dry rocks at 14,000 feet is not extreme, I'm sorry, it just isn't. Most of us will never do anything "extreme," and that's perfectly ok. Still, there's no use padding our egos with arbitrarily inflated "risk ratings" online.

Also, this system might be a dangerous liability. It lumps Ellingwood Arete (5.7 alpine multi-pitch) into the same category as Capitol's standard route (a couple moves of moderately exposed 4th class). If I can do one "extreme" route, I can do all of them, right? Capitol felt easy and safe, so going by these ratings, it should be no more dangerous for me to solo Ellingwood Arete.

14ers.com is a wonderful resource, and I thank Bill for the time put into maintaining the site, but I honestly think these categories should be removed, or at least significantly toned down.

i don't know the profile of your average 14ers.com user. i imagine many of them are inexperienced and look to this site to assess their choices. if you're new to hiking 14ers and have little knowledge about the nuances of class 4 versus class 5.7, then an extreme rating helps to clarify for you that perhaps you should try Capitol and Ellingwood Arete after you've gained the skill set, knowledge and expertise to understand the differences between them. in this sense, the ratings are useful for your average user of the site.

[nunns]

The concept of unavoidable "Extreme Risk" on a Colorado 14er standard route in summer is laughable.

Sigh. If only people cared about your opinion.

It's all relative in the context of Co 14ers; the implied relative level of risk is probably appropriate.

+1. Eli, you seem like a decent guy but oftentimes you come across as elitist.
After all, the concept of unavoidable "Extreme Risk" on the routes you climb would be laughable...to Alex Honnold and Tommy Caldwell.
Most of us recognize you are a more experienced climber than most of the rest of us. It's not necessary to constantly remind us.

Sean Nunn